• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Civil War: ‘A conspiracy of amnesia’

ConnorEl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
18,522
Reaction score
3,250
Location
In My Mind
per Leonard Pitts Jr.



Anyhow, today marks the 150th anniversary of first conflict of the Civil War.

I don' t pretend to be especially knowledgeable wrt the history of the war. But my impression is that Pitts is mostly right to suggest that the war was more about slavery than some seem willing to admit.

I don't know that any of my ancestors ever owned slaves, but I do consider the African slave trade to be one of the worst chapters in our nation's history. So glad it came to an end...and sorry it took such a bloody conflict to end it.

And so glad Lincoln was around to lead our nation through it.
 
:OldGoldBeard batsignal

lol

I don't know why, but OGB did come to mind when I posted this thread. Must be I vaguely recall him posting on the topic in the past.

Anyhow, sorry to raise an uncomfortable subject. Just seemed reasonable to do, given the day and that I read the Pitts article in the local paper this a.m.

And, as Pitts suggests, it's not bad to be uncomfortable about this part of our history.
 
You could say that slavery was the reason for the war (it certainly was a central theme), but I think it goes a lot deeper than that. Yes, the morality of slavery was certainly in question, but I think for many it was more a question of the economic and Federal Government vs State Government implications. As with most things, the reasons are not black and white (forgive the pun).

One thing is for certain, it still is a very emotional discussion for a lot of people. I'll be glad when we can finally talk about the time period without it devolving into something ugly. I think it's a very important part of our history, but people (on BOTH sides of the argument) bastardize into something it isn't.
 
But the south's economy was totallty dependent on slave labor.

The "state's rights" issue was about whether or not you could have slaves.
 
You could say that slavery was the reason for the war (it certainly was a central theme), but I think it goes a lot deeper than that. Yes, the morality of slavery was certainly in question, but I think for many it was more a question of the economic and Federal Government vs State Government implications. As with most things, the reasons are not black and white (forgive the pun).

One thing is for certain, it still is a very emotional discussion for a lot of people. I'll be glad when we can finally talk about the time period without it devolving into something ugly. I think it's a very important part of our history, but people (on BOTH sides of the argument) bastardize into something it isn't.


Oh, I agree. But was not slavery central to much of the economic and States' rights disputes? Anyhow, here's an article that does mention some of the non-slavery factors leading to disquiet and distrust between the North and South. Also, of course, the slavery issue is prominently mentioned.

I guess one way to look at it is to ask the questions, would the war have commenced apart from the disputes wrt slavery? I don't know, but I tend to think not. Could slavery have ended apart from the war? Again, I don't know. I think probably it could have, but not as quickly, I think.
 
Last edited:
Pitt's article is pretty spot on. The Lost Cause mentality played a huge role in post-bellum America as the nation was ready to move on from the conflict and forgive and forget. Post war study attempted to remove blacks from the narrative, ignoring the sacrifice of about 170,000 black troops who fought for the Union. Instead, historians of the era painted a picture of a valiant South that fought bravely aginst a foe that outnumbered them. Fears of "Negro domination" were prevalent in the South as whites feared losing the status and control they once had. All this contributed to the efforts by many to cover up and forget the real reasons for the war. Even northern-born historians got into the act of glorifying the war. I don't have the name of one prominent one with me right now, but can add it later if desired.

Southern history is pretty violent before, during and after the Civil War. I'm in a class now that focuses on Southern history; it has been eyeopening and is not for the squemish.

The fact is slavery was the cause of the war. Both sides had different reasons for why they were fighting though, which may or may not include slavery issues. Preserving the union, duty to country, defending slavery (or even the right to slavery for poor soldiers), defending your home, etc were all reasons that different people on different sides had. Without slavery though, the war would not have happened. Certainly conflict could have come up over some other issue, but nothing divided the nation like the issue of slavery did.
 
I wonder what the education level and age is of those polled. MY dad is in his 50's and remmebers learning about the war in school as the "War between the states" or War of Northern Agression" and it was all about state's rights and tariffs. When I was in highschool 10 years ago learning about it, it was more focused on the slavery aspect.

I think that poll shows that a lot of people were simply not taught a very accurate picture of the war's history. Different social climates have facilitated different approaches to the issue.
 
All I know is those damn carpetbagger Yankees commandeered my great, great, great grandfather's place in Mississippi after the war. Sherman's boys also looted another family home out east. They hid the silver in the well, but they found it anyway.

Damn Yankees!
 
Oh, I agree. But was not slavery central to much of the economic and States' rights disputes? Anyhow, here's an article that does mention some of the non-slavery factors leading to disquiet and distrust between the North and South. Also, of course, the slavery issue is prominently mentioned.

I guess one way to look at it is to ask the questions, would the war have commenced apart from the disputes wrt slavery? I don't know, but I tend to think not. Could slavery have ended apart from the war? Again, I don't know. I think probably it could have, but not as quickly, I think.

Oh, I agree the war was over slavery, in a sense. However, I think it was more about (as RJ mentioned) the dependency of southern economics on slave labor and the ability of the federal government to tell the southern states that they could not have slaves nor could any new states become slave states.

I think my point is more that slavery was the skin (I'm just full of puns today) of the conflict, and the deeper implications of slavery were the guts of the conflict. At that time, I'm not sure the conflict happens if it were just about having a moral objection to the idea of slavery, OR if it were just about the other issues. I think it took the combination of the two to create war.

ETA: Of course, most people who actually fought in the war did it just to protect their own interests against what they viewed as invaders/raiders. You could come up with a million and one reasons for why anybody volunteered to fight that war.
 
Last edited:
For the South it was about slavery, for the North it was about keeping the states together. Great piece today on cnn.com about how both sides profited immensely from slavery and the North's treatment and disreegard of the rights of blacks.
 
the ability of the federal government to tell the southern states that they could not have slaves nor could any new states become slave states.

It's been years since I've studied this stuff, but IIRC the North - Lincoln in particular - was content to let the South keep their slaves. He just didn't want slavery to proliferate to any of the western states, regardless of latitude. I seem to remember learning that the South mistakenly feared otherwise, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
 
We had this debate a few years back, and there seemed to be a sizable portion of people that maintained that the war wasn't really about slavery, but riddle me this: If the South didn't support/have slaves, would there have been a civil war 150 years ago when Lincoln was elected? No.

And Bama, IIRC, Lincoln was a staunchly opposed to slavery, though I don't know what his plans were from a policy point of view. The interesting question IMO is why did Lee continue the war after Lincoln won reelection? At that point, the South's hope was that he'd lose and they'd be allowed to go their own way. But after he won, the war was over. Lee's refusal needlessly resulted in thousands of deaths.
 
Bama is correct. Lincoln said that he would keep the union together any way possible, if that meant allowing slavery to persist then it was fine. If it meant emancipation then that was fine too. His goal was to preserve the Union, he didn't give a damn about ending slavery before the war started.

It wasn't until slaves began running to freedom behind Union lines during the war that Lincoln began to change his mind about the war. This coupled with low morale in the North and it led to the EP in 1863.
 
The main flaw in the article is that Pitts fails to distinguish between secession and the war. No sane person would argue that slavery was not the primary, overwhelming cause of secession. However, once the war started, independence was the South's objective, and they were willing to give up slavery to get it. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint), the adhesion to slavery was so strong that the South didn't begin to abandon it until it was too late to make a difference.
 
Last edited:
Secession was the cause of secession? That's too deep for me.
 
That's what I get for trying to type while on the phone. Slavery was the cause of secession.
 
Back
Top